Combining E. Tolle and Law of Attraction into one philosophy

[hanss]

...(and remain skeptical of the whole 'channeling' deal)... Andy

I was just as skeptical (and have been all my life). But when the labels are put aside I see it as no different from a Satsang with an enlightened being. It is "conciouness speaking". Esther sometimes calls Abraham "Infinite Intelligence". Suits the skeptical Little Me just fine There is also another reason. I have had a hobby with acting/actors in the past and I have now studied a lot of videos from the Abraham Workshops. Even though Esther looks a little like Meryl Streep I don't think she is acting. If so, she is the best actress that I have ever seen.

Kind of like when Spencer Kimball, President of the LDS Church got a call from Coca-Cola who wanted to build a plant in SLC. The story goes he said "No, we don't support that kind of beverage, but let me think about it for a while." The next day, he called Coke and said that he had received a message from God that it was "just fine." Wonder of wonders.

[CAROLANNELONDON]

Good Morning to all who have previously posted.

One of the reasons I resonate with Tolle is that the teachings are so simple, a child can understand. I would be surprised (doesn't matter) if he were to ever write more books. He has stated it all in his two, and reiterates through his speakings. I definitely connect with the Truths. (Yes, there is Stillness Speaks and a children's book, but you know what I mean).

He states something about the problem with all Spiritual Methods is that they take TIME. He is so gracious to go further to say that basically we can feel free to use them as long as we need to, until they are not necessary anymore.

I cannot help but feel that Rocknroll is using the principles in the Law of Attraction as a means to an end. "If I DO THIS, THEN THIS will happen". There is no Spiritual Receipe to "get what you want", no matter how cleverly disguised the endeavor is. We are all aware that there is nothing wrong in goals, and future planning, but it has to be in the NOW, and if there is no joy in the doing of now, you can rest assured the whole pursuit is egoic. What if the goal is never attained? Doesn't matter, If it was a means to an end, and something was learned, that is Beautiful.

Continue to connect with Being, with What Is, Fill yourself up with Divine Presence, as much as possible.

We (I) take life way too seriously!

In Joy.

[Sighclone]

Welcome CAL!

I agree. How can "getting stuff" be anything but ego? So I use the LOA to attract something to me? Who is that "me" who is attracting stuff? Does the universe need anything to move as a result of the perceived willpower of one tiny dot of consciousness. I'm still reading Abraham-Hicks, but get kind of stuck where we need to really line up real close with Source and then turn our attention to the "getting something." Doesn't that happen automatically as we "little me's" just disappear?

Andy

[unbornawakened]

ET does espouse 'belief' in something like the LOA, as evidenced by a few "in passing" comments in some of his talks. Just noticed it recently, and once I remember and find the snippet, will post.

Ken Wilber, and others, talk about the 'absolute' and the 'relative' domains. In the absolute, all is one, and the world does not exist, neither does thought or mind as we know it (the world may appear as a dream, and fades). In the relative, we face the problems and situations particular to human thought and conditions. Since most of us dwell in the relative domain most of the 'time' - in thought, perceptions, emotions, feelings - we need to be aware of its pitfalls. The LOA, to the extent that it is correct, allows us to avoid some common pitfalls. Its application for reaching objects of desire is dubious - it requires urgent and intense spontaneity and alignment with higher purpose (resulting in positive emotional feedback). Again, that works in the relative domain. In the absolute domain, the world does not exist as such and there is nothing to desire or manifest.

What ET is saying is that we can bypass thought and time altogether, by allowing presence to flow - instead of blocking it with our egoic mind. But of course, since we are not present most of the time, we cannot ignore the laws of the relative domain.

[tenderboy]

It seems like there are two popular schools of thought: Law of Attraction (creating with thoughts and beliefs) and Spiritual Awakening (becoming free from thoughts, thoughts are illusory).

The Law of Attraction exists definitely as a part of the illusory world of thinking humans. But that attractions IS an illusory thing. Attraction means that people recognize a specific energy of the others including thoughts and together with the ego it turns out in the manifestation which is described by the Law of Attraction. However, even if some schools are teaching that implementing the knowledge of that reality to benefit from that is fulfilling, it is not at least. You won't know who you are, only because you learned how to influence other Ego's. That is why Eckhart Tolle is teaching to get out of the old structures including the structure of attraction.

[HowToKnowGod]

It seems like there are two popular schools of thought: Law of Attraction (creating with thoughts and beliefs) and Spiritual Awakening (becoming free from thoughts, thoughts are illusory).

I haven't read all of the posts here, so I don't know if anyone's addressed this, but...

Awareness isn't a school of thought. Awareness is awareness of thought. You can't call Tolle's teachings a school of thought because it's just about watching thoughts.

Any decisions you could make about spiritual teachings, any thoughts you could have about them, are still just thoughts. So, do you watch the thoughts or be the thoughts?

"Eckhart teaches to go beyond thought." Is correct, but it's also just a thought to be watched.

[Sighclone]

"Eckhart teaches to go beyond thought." Is correct, but it's also just a thought to be watched.

Subtle recursive comment, HYKG. But not, in my experience quite right. The "going beyond thought" is an experience, not a thought or concept. Eating your first orange was not a thought. Eckhart introduces a lot of concepts, and, until they are experienced, they are all concepts. He's a little weaker on the sadhanas, or spiritual practices, and then came out with some CDs with some exercises. The personality we call Eckhart Tolle is very cerebral, and accompanies that with a very light verbal touch which gives his words great power. But his focus is cerebral.

His CD set "Gateways to NOW" offers some simple techniques to releasing the grip of the mind. The place "beyond thought" is the fundamental Source of both thought and form, and it is who/what we are. In his latest reminder he recalls that we are not "in the now," but that we are the now. Very depersonalizing until you rest there or return there often enough to recognize it as "home," "Self" and eternity...not a thought to be watched.

Andy